1. #80521
    Void Lord Breccia's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    NY, USA
    Posts
    41,395
    Quote Originally Posted by cubby View Post
    What I mean is, what is your point in citing this case in these circumstances?
    I mean, if the issue was "Trump said they were privileged while he was still in the WH" it might be useful. Might. Trump claims he declassified them, then removed them from government custody. Pretty sure that'd break privilege. Which he can no longer assert, because Biden is President.

  2. #80522
    Quote Originally Posted by Breccia View Post
    I mean, if the issue was "Trump said they were privileged while he was still in the WH" it might be useful. Might. Trump claims he declassified them, then removed them from government custody. Pretty sure that'd break privilege.
    Fair question: How can a "declassified" document be privileged? I mean I'm sure there are privileged communications in there and that the FBI has precisely zero interest in those. Nor would they, or the rest of the "declassified" evidence ever be made public given their nature.

    Which is a doozy for the conspiracy theorists who will argue that because the FBI/DOJ didn't reveal classified documents publicly to prove their case that this is all a hoax and a partisan hitjob because that's what they'd do, apparently.

    Quote Originally Posted by Breccia View Post
    Which he can no longer assert, because Biden is President.
    Which, as evidenced by Biden refusing to assert privilege over Trump documents that Trump was claiming privilege less than a year ago - https://www.politico.com/news/2021/1...ubpoena-515681

    Sure does make it sound like the power of determining privilege always rests in the hands of whoever holds of the office of the POTUS, and that former presidents do not retain their executive authorities once they leave office. Which like, kinda makes sense given that they're out of a job even if they retain some of its perks.

  3. #80523
    A couple things to keep in mind while Tehdang tries to obfuscate and shill for a corrupt disgrace of a former president: Trump didn't assert privilege.

    "There's a predicate problem, though: Trump has not asserted executive privilege. The Archivist gave him over a month to do so. He didn't. The PRA allows him to file a lawsuit to assert it. He didn't do that either. Trump *still* hasn't asserted it as to any particular document."

    Furthermore:

    "The Assistant Attorney General has advised me that there is no precedent for an assertion of executive privilege by a former President against an incumbent President to prevent the latter from obtaining from NARA Presidential records belonging to the Federal Government where “such records contain information that is needed for the conduct of current business of the incumbent President’s office and that is not otherwise available.” 44 U.S.C. § 2205(2)(B). To the contrary, the Supreme Court’s decision in Nixon v. Administrator of General Services, 433 U.S. 425 (1977), strongly suggests that a former President may not successfully assert executive privilege “against the very Executive Branch in whose name the privilege is invoked.” Id. at 447-48. In Nixon v. GSA, the Court rejected former President Nixon’s argument that a statute requiring that Presidential records from his term in office be maintained in the custody of, and screened by, NARA’s predecessor agency—a “very limited intrusion by personnel in the Executive Branch sensitive to executive concerns”—would “impermissibly interfere with candid communication of views by Presidential advisers.” Id. at 451; see also id. at 455 (rejecting the claim). The Court specifically noted that an “incumbent President should not be dependent on happenstance or the whim of a prior President when he seeks access to records of past decisions that define or channel current governmental obligations.” Id. at 452; see also id. at 441-46 (emphasizing, in the course of rejecting a separation-of-powers challenge to a provision of a federal statute governing the disposition of former President Nixon’s tape recordings, papers, and other historical materials “within the Executive Branch,” where the “employees of that branch [would] have access to the materials only ‘for lawful Government use,’” that “[t]he Executive Branch remains in full control of the Presidential materials, and the Act facially is designed to ensure that the materials can be released only when release is not barred by some applicable privilege inherent in that branch”; and concluding that “nothing contained in the Act renders it unduly disruptive of the Executive Branch”).

    https://www.documentcloud.org/docume...rump-documents
    Last edited by Levelfive; 2022-09-08 at 02:19 AM.
    Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition, to wit: There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect. There is nothing more or else to it, and there never has been, in any place or time. --Frank Wilhoit

  4. #80524
    Void Lord Breccia's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    NY, USA
    Posts
    41,395
    Quote Originally Posted by Edge- View Post
    Fair question: How can a "declassified" document be privileged?
    I guess, technically, a discussion between Biden and his Cabinet about setting policy could focus on existing laws and personal preference, none of which is classfied. But yes, it does seem odd. Of course, removing it from government property and leaving it lying around still defeats the purpose of "nobody can read this".

    EDIT: And of course, Executive Privilege only applies to communications. It does not cover, for example, nuclear secrets. Trump, as @Levelfive has said, may not have put privilege on anything, but based on what we know, it might not matter if he had actually tried.

    - - - Updated - - -

    This Reuters article clarifies what we already suspected: the "special master" assignment by the judge is balls-deep into "easier said than done".

    A special master has never before been called on to determine whether records are covered by executive privilege, particularly in the unique circumstance of a former president asserting the right over the prerogative of the current president, Joe Biden.

    "Appointing a special master I think may be harder than people think," said John Bolton, Trump's former national security adviser who previously also served at the Justice Department. "How many people with TS/SCI clearance are out there? And how many of them are experts on executive privilege?"
    The article says four people have been named. Everyone refused.

    If Trump and the DoJ don't agree on a name -- which seems highly likely, Trump knows an impartial candidate will sink him -- the judge, a Trump-appointed Louisiana judge, will pick one.

    Of course, all of this is little more than a stall tactic. Executive privilege remains irrelevant for the context of Trump stealing documents. At best, this special master might say "this communication between Trump and the other insurrectionists is privileged, so the FBI can't read it until Biden personally brings up the crime exception".
    Last edited by Breccia; 2022-09-08 at 02:37 AM.

  5. #80525
    The Lightbringer
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Sweden
    Posts
    3,071
    Quote Originally Posted by Edge- View Post
    To fill out the elipses there -



    Bolded was missing. I'm not sure what benefit the Republic is supposed to get out of this? Or how this benefits anyone beyond Trump and his personal reputation? Which, as has been noted by lawyers and legal scholars everywhere so far, is a completely nonsensical notion and one with no real basis in judicial history.

    For more - https://www.justsecurity.org/78904/n...-meaningfully/



    Which, as a reminder, Trump is no longer the head of the executive branch.
    This whole thing with Privilege of this nature disturbs me.

    Personally I think there should be a standing investigative team that investigates every one who leaves a public federal office. Everyone.
    They've got full access (with some security sorces covered etc) and check all actions for corruption, major illegal things, warcrimes, etc.
    And then submit that for prosecuition if they find any.

    Presidential Privilege is just, 100% against that.
    - Lars

  6. #80526

  7. #80527
    The Unstoppable Force Bakis's Avatar
    15+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Sweden
    Posts
    24,707
    I would like for Trump to explain his rather odd fetish of keeping a ton of empty folders labeled with secrecy stamps in his basement.
    "Ran out of ass wipe" is probably the most sane explanation he could come up with.
    Russia is doomed as it always has been historically

  8. #80528
    Quote Originally Posted by Breccia View Post

    The article says four people have been named. Everyone refused.

    If Trump and the DoJ don't agree on a name -- which seems highly likely, Trump knows an impartial candidate will sink him -- the judge, a Trump-appointed Louisiana judge, will pick one.

    Of course, all of this is little more than a stall tactic. Executive privilege remains irrelevant for the context of Trump stealing documents. At best, this special master might say "this communication between Trump and the other insurrectionists is privileged, so the FBI can't read it until Biden personally brings up the crime exception".
    So I posted and below is your reply to possibly what might happen and I wanted to continue the discussion.

    https://www.mmo-champion.com/threads...1#post53900606

    I wanted to reply that there was no doubt they were able to find a person who both parties agree with. So the part I was unsure about but from Rueters' article was now she can possibly appoint someone? Geez!

    I want to say that this judge seems so unhinged that appealing from the start seemed like the best bet for DOJ and what others were saying. Idk if they are going to or this has no proceeded so they can't appeal outright.

    The appeals I have read lead to the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals which has 5 Trump appointed judges. So let's say the worst and they favor Trump then next is SCOTUS. Oh Boy! Here SCOTUS may make new precedent by saying ex-Presidents have Executive Privilege, plain and simply. Worst case scenario here.

    So is all this a delay tactic until 2024. We must never underestimate Trump and what seems incompetent lawyers. If they can kick this a whole 2 years down the line and wait for a Presidential election that of course all is lost.
    "Buh dah DEMS"

  9. #80529
    Quote Originally Posted by Paranoid Android View Post
    So I posted and below is your reply to possibly what might happen and I wanted to continue the discussion.

    https://www.mmo-champion.com/threads...1#post53900606

    I wanted to reply that there was no doubt they were able to find a person who both parties agree with. So the part I was unsure about but from Rueters' article was now she can possibly appoint someone? Geez!

    I want to say that this judge seems so unhinged that appealing from the start seemed like the best bet for DOJ and what others were saying. Idk if they are going to or this has no proceeded so they can't appeal outright.

    The appeals I have read lead to the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals which has 5 Trump appointed judges. So let's say the worst and they favor Trump then next is SCOTUS. Oh Boy! Here SCOTUS may make new precedent by saying ex-Presidents have Executive Privilege, plain and simply. Worst case scenario here.

    So is all this a delay tactic until 2024. We must never underestimate Trump and what seems incompetent lawyers. If they can kick this a whole 2 years down the line and wait for a Presidential election that of course all is lost.
    That's exactly where we find ourselves with a corrupt judiciary, and no doubt the DoJ has made the same calculations--if they appeal, they run the risk that the Court(s) will again run interference and / or help Trump run out the clock. And as you note, it's entirely conceivable that they'll invent protections out of thin air for unprecedented assertions that Trump hasn't even made that would potentially create absolute havoc for the incumbent president's ability to, as the Archivist stated, "conduct current business." On the one hand, I'm in favor of the FedSoc judiciary continuing to make the case for its own gross corruption and illegitimacy; on the other hand, there's no evidence that Democrats collectively have the will for the necessary and proper judicial reform.
    Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition, to wit: There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect. There is nothing more or else to it, and there never has been, in any place or time. --Frank Wilhoit

  10. #80530
    Void Lord Breccia's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    NY, USA
    Posts
    41,395
    Laura Ingraham is a vapid whore.

    So we all know by now the WaPo story about Trump having nuclear secrets. FOX News had zero choice but to report on it as well.

    Here's their defense, apparently: FBI leaks are bad.

    "Wait, they didn't contradict the story?"

    No. FOX News couldn't go toe-to-toe in a credibility fight with the Washington Post on their best day. Instead, Ingraham said that the DoJ was trying to ruin Trump with these leaks, and--

    "Wait, isn't Trump ruining himself by committing these crimes? Isn't that the real problem?"

    In a sane world, yes. Also, Ingraham mocked the WaPo reporter with

    She was given information by either someone at the White House who was fed it ... but she's acting like she's Edward R. Murrow doing, like, gumshoe reporting here. She isn't doing anything. She's just being spoon-fed information.
    "Has Ingraham done any gumshoe reporting?"

    No.

    "Does Ingraham know that having solid sources is a big part of being a reporter? Did she forget that she and other FOX hosts called Trump during the riot?"

    It's a lot harder to be a hypocrite if you admit you're doing it.

    "Would a reporter, by doing 'gumshoe reporting' breaking into Mar-a-Lago and finding nuclear secrets be multiple crimes itself?"

    Yes.

    Remember, FOX News has no defense for Trump. This is admission of such. What they have is wishing we didn't have proof Trump is a lying felon traitor.

  11. #80531
    The FBI source probably wouldn't have leaked that Trump had another nations nuclear defence secrets at home if we didn't know he had some nuclear secrets to begin with. Which we know because Trump himself asked for the release of details about what the FBI took.
    It ignores such insignificant forces as time, entropy, and death

  12. #80532
    Void Lord Breccia's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    NY, USA
    Posts
    41,395
    Quote Originally Posted by Gorsameth View Post
    The FBI source probably wouldn't have leaked that Trump had another nations nuclear defence secrets at home if we didn't know he had some nuclear secrets to begin with. Which we know because Trump himself asked for the release of details about what the FBI took.
    I agree, but there's another option. WaPo's source could have been the FBI's source. A family member, friend, or employee that Trump trusted enough to show his totally illegal stolen nuclear secrets. Or, funny story, because Trump had them effectively lying around, it could be a hotel guest or employee whose name he doesn't even know. Some of that shit was in his desk.

    Or I guess it could be some Secret Service agent, angry at Trump ruining his agency's good name.

  13. #80533
    Quote Originally Posted by Breccia View Post
    I agree, but there's another option. WaPo's source could have been the FBI's source. A family member, friend, or employee that Trump trusted enough to show his totally illegal stolen nuclear secrets. Or, funny story, because Trump had them effectively lying around, it could be a hotel guest or employee whose name he doesn't even know. Some of that shit was in his desk.

    Or I guess it could be some Secret Service agent, angry at Trump ruining his agency's good name.
    Wasn't that the rumour? that the FBI's source testifying that the documents were at Mar-A-Lago was a member of Trumps SS detail?
    It ignores such insignificant forces as time, entropy, and death

  14. #80534
    Void Lord Breccia's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    NY, USA
    Posts
    41,395
    As predicted, Bannon turns himself in.

    Screaming into the wind this was 60 days to the election (an election he's not running in nor anyone's advisor in), Bannon faces multiple felonies, including money laundering NYState residents out of $730,000 which could get him five years. Each? Also conspiracy to defraud, which I'll remind everyone, his three co-conspirators all pled guilty in their federal trial, and that shit's evidence now.

    Mr. Bannon took advantage of his donors' political views to secure millions of dollars which he then misappropriated. Mr. Bannon lied to his donors to enrich himself and his friend.

    It is a crime to turn a profit by lying to donors, and in New York, you will be held accountable. As alleged, Stephen Bannon acted as the architect of a multi-million dollar scheme to defraud thousands of donors across the country -- including hundreds of Manhattan residents
    -- New York State

    Trump might have a teflon-based nickname for a reason: he's so fat, he likely eats directly out of the pan instead of waiting for a plate. But more and more of his teammates keep showing up in orange jumpsuits. At least with Bannon Trump tried...kind of, I mean, not much he could do with NYState charges themselves, but why didn't he pardon Bannon's co-conspirators?

    Oh, and also, they didn't tell the IRS. Which strongly suggests they didn't tell their state tax officials, either. So Bannon might get even more charges added on later.

    Oh, and also also, to address an earlier question:

    Paul Manafort, Trump's one-time campaign boss, was charged with running a two-year scheme to obtain more than $19 million in residential mortgage loans based on fraudulent representations to various banks. The New York Court of Appeals ultimately threw out the case, deeming it too similar to Manafort's federal conviction and therefore double jeopardy.

    In the state case against Bannon, double jeopardy is not expected to apply because a jury was never convened to weigh the federal fraud charges over "We Build the Wall."
    Bannon can't claim double jeopardy, which says you can't be tried twice for the same crime, because he wasn't tried once for the same crime.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Gorsameth View Post
    Wasn't that the rumour?
    There are many rumors. Most people don't like Trump, and his remaining circle of allies he hasn't discarded yet are all very Trumpian -- they'd sell out their own family to get ahead/avoid jail time. Maybe not Giuliani, but everyone else. The list of suspects is just too damn high.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Fuck, I hit submit without hitting refresh.

    Federal grand jury probing Trump PAC's formation, fundraising efforts

    Almost forgot about that. Yeah, this seems to be about Trump misusing donations and keeping them for himself. Gosh, isn't that topical? Trump's PAC asked for a lot of money after Trump was found to be a felon traitor, and, well, Trump's not running for office, there are rules about what he can spend and how. Subpoenas are already going out. This story will develop.

  15. #80535
    https://twitter.com/RonFilipkowski/s...80416022937601

    So Macro Rubio is trotting out the old "locker room talk" excuses.

    Trump's apparent theft of hundreds/thousands of classified government documents is apparently "just a storage issue". A storage issue that happens to have some fairly serious federal laws around it, I guess.

    "I don't think a fight over the storage of documents is worthy of what they've done."

    Glad to hear it, Marco! Do you mind if I store operational data for the US navy in my closet for a while? How about the locations of all our nuclear weapons? I'll put that in the shed on the side of the house, it's got a door with a knob and everything so it's very secure. Surely there would be no security risks or anything because it's just about the storage of some documents.

  16. #80536
    Void Lord Breccia's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    NY, USA
    Posts
    41,395
    Quote Originally Posted by Edge- View Post
    "I don't think a fight over the storage of documents is worthy of what they've done."
    I think I should take the money in Marco Rubio's bank account, and put it in my house. What's the problem? It's just the storage.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Okay, so, now that I have a few minutes and a working subscription to the NYTimes, it's time to talk about Trump's new fund raising legal problem.

    A federal grand jury in Washington is examining the formation of — and spending by — a super PAC created by Donald J. Trump after his loss in the 2020 election as he was raising millions of dollars by baselessly asserting that the results had been marred by widespread voting fraud.
    Yes just to be 100% clear, they are looking at his political fundraising after he lost the election, and therefore, was no longer a candidate.

    According to subpoenas issued by the grand jury, the contents of which were described to The New York Times, the Justice Department is interested in the inner workings of Save America PAC, Mr. Trump’s main fund-raising vehicle after the election. Several similar subpoenas were sent on Wednesday to junior and midlevel aides who worked in the White House and for Mr. Trump’s presidential campaign.

    Among the roughly half-dozen current and former Trump aides in the White House and the 2020 presidential campaign who are said to have received subpoenas this week were Beau Harrison, an aide to Mr. Trump in the White House and in his post-presidency, and William S. Russell, who similarly worked in the West Wing and now for Mr. Trump’s personal office, according to several people familiar with the events.

    The new subpoenas appeared to have been issued by a different grand jury in Washington than the one that has been gathering evidence about the so-called fake electors plan, which has focused on questions surrounding pro-Trump lawyers like Rudolph W. Giuliani and John Eastman.

    At least one of the new subpoenas bore the name of a veteran federal prosecutor in Washington who specializes in fraud cases, suggesting that this avenue of inquiry is devoted primarily to examining the spending and fund-raising at Mr. Trump’s super PAC.

    At a hearing held in June by the House select committee investigating Jan. 6, Representative Zoe Lofgren, Democrat of California, laid out the panel’s account of how Save America PAC and Mr. Trump’s campaign raised $250 million after the election by claiming they were fighting widespread fraud when they knew there was none.
    I won't pretend to know all the rules of campaign finances, after all, apparently spending $130,000 on a whore is somehow part of the bargain. But I do know that money taken in by an election campaign must be spent on that election campaign. Charging yourself rent and raising the rates is, apparently, completely allowed. But only if you're actually there and doing election stuff. Trump's PAC, well, wasn't.

    Because of their very nature, campaign funds have to routinely turned over. If you lie on those filings, that's fraud, that's a felony, and goodbye. And, as Bannon was so kind enough to recently remind us, if you say you're running a charity, or a political campaign, and you just keep the money, that's also fraud. And while this is a federal grand jury, I fully expect NYState to get in line, because it very likely has its own laws that this also broke.

    "Wouldn't that be double jeopardy?"

    As we've seen, depends on who files and how. NYState could simply sue for the money the Trump campaign stole from its donors.

    This is turning out to be an exceptionally shitty week for Trump, even by Trump standards. DWAC has...actually wait, hold on.

    (checks news)

    Okay DWAC has recovered some, but the meeting about the extension (still projected to fail) was pushed to today, so expect to hear more about that. People stuck with shares will actually be paid based on how much money DWAC has divided evenly, so, anyone who jumped in at $10 opening still wins, but most DWAC stockholders are expected to lose 50% of their investment. More importantly, CyberTrump 2077 has poor hardware, poor software, poor staff, is losing money, and everyone involved is a target of an SEC investigation.

    Add that to what we now know about Trump having nuclear secrets and lying about it, Bannon being arrested, Barr mocking him in public, and his fundraising being subpoena'd, and this is a 10-car-pileup on Trump Street.

  17. #80537
    https://twitter.com/noraneus/status/1567838109349339137

    Another report on Michigan Republicans teaching people to work as "spies" or "undercover agents" because they're absolutely convinced there's widespread voter fraud that they believed happened in 2020, despite no evidence of it.

    One loser affiiliated with this group already got physically escorted out of observing vote counting in the primary for failing to follow the rules, which apparently included repeatedly getting very close to counters. You hear him quickly say, "I told them that they are breaking the law..." but the report cuts off.

    Not that we need to hear more, since Republicans think that the law is broken any time they lose anything or it doesn't go the way they want it to.

  18. #80538
    Merely a Setback Kaleredar's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    phasing...
    Posts
    26,831
    Quote Originally Posted by Edge- View Post
    https://twitter.com/noraneus/status/1567838109349339137

    Another report on Michigan Republicans teaching people to work as "spies" or "undercover agents" because they're absolutely convinced there's widespread voter fraud that they believed happened in 2020, despite no evidence of it.

    One loser affiiliated with this group already got physically escorted out of observing vote counting in the primary for failing to follow the rules, which apparently included repeatedly getting very close to counters. You hear him quickly say, "I told them that they are breaking the law..." but the report cuts off.

    Not that we need to hear more, since Republicans think that the law is broken any time they lose anything or it doesn't go the way they want it to.
    The unfortunate matter in all of this (well, one of many) is that while upper-echelon people in the GOP who push the great “election stolen” or voter fraud lies knowing they’re lies, you’re average Joe Schmoe Republican absolutely believes them.
    “Do not lose time on daily trivialities. Do not dwell on petty detail. For all of these things melt away and drift apart within the obscure traffic of time. Live well and live broadly. You are alive and living now. Now is the envy of all of the dead.” ~ Emily3, World of Tomorrow
    Quote Originally Posted by Wells View Post
    Kaleredar is right...
    Words to live by.

  19. #80539
    Immortal Poopymonster's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    Neverland Ranch Survivor
    Posts
    7,730
    Quote Originally Posted by Kaleredar View Post
    The unfortunate matter in all of this (well, one of many) is that while upper-echelon people in the GOP who push the great “election stolen” or voter fraud lies knowing they’re lies, you’re average Joe Schmoe Republican absolutely believes them.
    Of course they will. They are right. They are correct. They are fighting for all that is good in the US. They can't be wrong.
    Like the propaganda says "If God is on our side, who is on theirs?
    Quote Originally Posted by Crissi View Post
    Quit using other posters as levels of crazy. That is not ok


    If you look, you can see the straw man walking a red herring up a slippery slope coming to join this conversation.

  20. #80540
    Void Lord Breccia's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    NY, USA
    Posts
    41,395
    Recently, I said it's been a bad week for Trump.

    I should have waited, like, ten fucking minutes.

    Trump threatens to sue FOX News.

    "Whoa, that's a major rift between the two! That doesn't sound like it can be just handwaved."

    Oh, it gets better. Trump is threatening to sue FOX News, because he says aired a Lincoln Project ad.

    The Perverts and Lowlifes of the Lincoln Project are back on, where else, Fox News. I thought they ran away to the asylum after their last catastrophic campaign, with charges made against them that were big time sleaze, and me getting many millions more votes in 2020 than I got in 2016.

    The Paul Ryun run Fox only has high standards for ’Trump’ ads, but not for anyone else. The Perverts should not be allowed to ’false advertise,’ and Fox News should not allow it to happen. See you all in Court!!!
    "Which ad?"

    Oh, that's the best part.

    None.

    The Lincoln Project did get an ad out today on a local FOX affiliate, but not FOX News. Trump is, erm, let's say "confused". I recommend everyone here use this next time someone says something about Biden being forgetful. Trump can't even watch TV correctly.

    "He still seems to be struggling with the concept of having fewer votes than Biden."

    Yes. Since he brought it up recently, I feel it's something that should be asked of our local Trump supporters. I know, I thought it was decided, but Trump still seems to think there's some wiggle room.

    "Okay, but, Perverts?"

    Projection.

    "It's capitalized."

    He's projecting hard. Ivanka must have bent over to pick up something on the floor. Nuclear secrets, maybe. I vaguely remember some time ago the Lincoln Project maybe suggesting Trump wanted to bang his daughter, and showing a bunch of pictures to back it up. But the recent ad doesn't say anything about that at all. It says Trump lost the election.

    Actually wait, I found it.



    Description says this is the ad in question. There is no mention at all about women or children or sex, so "Perverts" is confirmed as projection. Instead, it says Trump told his followers that the election was stolen, to get campaign contributions, that he kept for himself.

    "Trump is going to sue them for lying?"

    Well, he's Trump, so no, probably not. Also, remember how a few hours ago I pointed out the federal investigation that Trump telling his followers that the election was stolen, to get campaign contributions, that he kept for himself? Yeah, you can't sue someone for lying when there's an ongoing criminal investigation into their claims. Slander and libel require the accusation to be knowingly false. An ongoing criminal investigation defuses that.

    "The Lincoln Project must be responding with the same 'no comment' everyone else responds with."

    Then you don't know the Lincoln Project.

    Go for it, bitch. I double-dog-dare you.
    Also...where will he find a lawyer?

    Holy shit, this is a gaping, bleeding, self-inflicted injury. I can't wait to hear what Hannity thinks about this!

    Just kidding. He'll pretend it never happened.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •